D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Oofta]

Yeah, and my logic was, "If it lets me load and fire a heavy crossbow 2-3 times in 6 seconds regardless of my strength, then surely it lets me do something like load a hand crossbow one-handed." Remember, a hand crossbow can be drawn by hand, a light crossbow takes a goat's foot or a spanning belt, and a heavy crossbow takes a windlass. We're already being very generous here.

FWIW I think hand crossbows should only do a point of damage and have limited range - they may be able to deliver poison but they're basically glorified toys. That, and there should be a slow loading property where it takes at least a turn to reload.

But nobody ever claimed D&D was particularly realistic, particularly when it comes to implementation of ranged weapons. Where we draw the line is just a bit different.

 

[Bacon Bits]

FWIW I think hand crossbows should only do a point of damage and have limited range - they may be able to deliver poison but they're basically glorified toys. That, and there should be a slow loading property where it takes at least a turn to reload.

But nobody ever claimed D&D was particularly realistic, particularly when it comes to implementation of ranged weapons. Where we draw the line is just a bit different.

Oh, definitely. I think hand crossbows should not do more damage or have longer range than thrown daggers. I just think it's much more fun to have a hand crossbows akimbo rather than someone rapidly firing one hand crossbow at all. Like I can imagine a hand crossbow "gunslinger" type character who uses two hand crossbows. I think that's a more evocative and fun image, so Crawford's ruling felt totally arbitrary and anti-rule-of-cool. It's actually less powerful to have to use two crossbows -- you'd need two magic ones -- so it felt more min-maxey, too.

The feat is written with absurd language, too. Like, I submit that nobody reads, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding," turns around and immediately thinks, "Oh, I should use a hand crossbow as my only weapon to get the most benefit from this feat." Sorry, but that language is screaming to me, "You can use a hand crossbow like it's an off-hand weapon. And you can ignore the loading property!" Instead, nope, the best use of the benefit is the plainest thing ever. A character running round with a rapier and hand crossbow? Awesome, but nope that doesn't work. Two hand crossbows? Fantastic, but nope that doesn't work. Just a hand crossbow? Ugh, yawn, but it's valid.

I'd rather that there were no way to ignore the loading property at all, quite frankly. I'm okay with "forcing" ranged characters to use bows instead of making crossbows a straight upgrade for them because I think making all archers want to transition to crossbows is... dumb. It breaks the imagery of using a traditional bow in a fantasy game. I like the idea that crossbows are what untrained characters use (i.e., those who lack Extra Attack) and everyone who is skilled uses a regular bow. I think that's a better design. I don't think it's close, either.

 

[commandercrud]

In my world there are no hand crossbows. Because they're stupid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

which most people see as the most logical

Quite a claim. I completely disagree.

The most logical interpretation is that it’s a magic item that projects magical protection over the user, regardless of whether it is being actually used as a shield or not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my world there are no hand crossbows. Because they're stupid.

Well that’s just silly.

 

[Istbor]

Can't we use our individual flavor of common sense as DMs and just ignore a rule or ruling? As has been done since time began? (D&D time obviously)

Also really? Someone is handing out +3 shields? Holy heck! No thanks. A +1 shield in most of my worlds is already hella powerful.

 

[commandercrud]

Well that’s just silly.

Why? Not every edition of D&D has even had them.

 

[Aaron L]

so now any +X shield is poorman's animated shield?

I guess the reasoning is that a magic shield grants extra protection not because it is a functioning shield that is magically stronger, but because it is a magical talisman that grants magical protection no different from a Ring of Protection... albeit one which just so happens to also be a functioning shield.

Perhaps Jeremy Crawford envisions magic shields as working by generating a magical forcefield around the holder, regardless of whether they are able to competently wield the shield in combat or not?

And while I can see the nuts and bolts behind how that interpretation is constructed, and understand how it would expand the usefulness of such items by allowing (for example) Wizards to carry around magic shields as functioning protective talismans for themselves... it's still just damn peculiar and flies in the face of the logic behind how magical armor and shields have always worked in every other version of the game. It's like ruling that a Wizard can carry around a +2 longsword and it will give him +2 to hit and damage with his staff and spells.

 

[Helldritch]

Quite a claim. I completely disagree.

The most logical interpretation is that it’s a magic item that projects magical protection over the user, regardless of whether it is being actually used as a shield or not.

So is a defender sword and I would not allow it either. Just holding a +1 sword should not allow a wizard to get +1 hit and damage with his spells, he should actively be using the sword to attack. And so should a shield not protect the one who is simply holding it. A shield is an active protection. Not a passive one as an armor is. The magic of the shield makes it lighter and allow for faster reaction (this is not related to the action called reaction by the way) and enables the shield user to block incoming attacks. Simply holding a shield does not make you able to earn that hability.

Well there is a case where I would allow a non proficient user to get the full bonus. It is with the dodge action. Obviously, the character is trying its best to defend so he is actually using the shield but can't retaliate because the character does not know how to do defense and attack with a shield at the same time.

Why? Not every edition of D&D has even had them.

These little things has beem in D&D since AD&D in the fiend folio. And I am not sure but there was either an adventure or a supplement in basic where they were mentioned (but this one is a hazy memory, it might have been for AD&D.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Quite a claim. I completely disagree.

Yep. And--I completely disagree with you. Isn't the first time, so no surprise there.

The most logical interpretation is that it’s a magic item that projects magical protection over the user, regardless of whether it is being actually used as a shield or not.

Hardly. Otherwise other magic items would protect you just by holding them (rings, armor, etc.) and most don't. As far as I can recall, only staves of power give an AC bonus when being "held."

The most logical interpretation is a magic item works when used as the items was designed to be used. A shield, like armor, should be donned. A weapon must be used when making the attack role, and so forth.